1 2025:HHC:34949 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.623 of 2025 Decided on: 14 th October , 2025 __________________________________________________ State of H.P. and others ....Petitioners Versus Kashmira Devi ...Respondent ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration in the present LPA is to the judgment dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.11028 of 2024 titled as Kashmira Devi vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. Counsel for the respondent-employee has placed on record the affidavit filed by the State in the contempt petition filed by the employee bearing COPC No.470 of 2025 titled Kashmira Devi vs. Dr. Abhishek Jain and others. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. In the said affidavit, it has been averred that the appellant-State has considered the claim of the petitioner through a detailed speaking order dated 18.06.2025, subject to the outcome of the present LPA, and they have processed the pension case through the office of Accountant General, vide letter dated 20.06.2025. It has also been mentioned, that by giving the benefit of the judgment in Balo Devi’s case (Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022) decided on 18.07.2022, the employee had rendered 9 years and 3 months of regular service which is to be considered for pensionary benefits, keeping in view the fact that he has also completed more than 8 years of service on daily wage basis. Apparently, the petitioner had been appointed in the year 2004 on daily wage basis, and the benefit of which was accordingly given by the learned Single Judge as she was regularized on 20.09.2012 and retired on 31.12.2021. 4. Counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the case, to this extent, is covered by the Balo Devi’s judgment of the Apex Court and the case for pension will be duly processed, since the employee had already retired on 31.12.2021. However, counsel for the State has however serious objections to the benefits granted in para 8 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the retirement was held to be at the age of 60 years. It is further pointed 3 out that the matter is the subject matter of consideration in Satya Devi’s case before the Apex Court and there is also a stay. 5. Counsel for the respondent-employee submits that he would have no objection, if the benefit given in paragraph 8 of the learned Single Judge is not given effect to. 6. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the employee will be entitled to pension from 01.01.2022. The State shall accordingly process the case of the employee for pension. Since, there was a penal clause of interest of non- compliance within 6 months from the order of learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2024 and the matter was pending before this Court, the penal clause will come into force if the pension is not released by 01.01.2026. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 14 th October , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge